[Locked] Matchmaking and Ranking Manipulation Bans

DerpsterTheNoob wrote:

ZaedynFel wrote:

As we discussed months ago, TrueSkill2 marks players for anomalous behavior which can flag the ban processor.

The banning system is now banning consistently for this behavior, starting at 14 days, and quickly escalating into permanence.

Also, note that the banning system will not only ban the flagged account, but also other accounts and consoles associated with it.

We suggest playing normally to avoid these bans.

I don't believe creating an alternate account and playing normally will flag, but outside of that will be risky.

So play nice, play fair.

Perm banning people who payed to play your game, alongside automation?

This is a recipe for disaster.

I have no qualms about automatically permanently banning players who repeatedly and intentionally ruin the game for other players. If that's all those players are doing in the game, then the terms of service are pretty clear.

ZaedynFel wrote:

DerpsterTheNoob wrote:

ZaedynFel wrote:

As we discussed months ago, TrueSkill2 marks players for anomalous behavior which can flag the ban processor.

The banning system is now banning consistently for this behavior, starting at 14 days, and quickly escalating into permanence.

Also, note that the banning system will not only ban the flagged account, but also other accounts and consoles associated with it.

We suggest playing normally to avoid these bans.

I don't believe creating an alternate account and playing normally will flag, but outside of that will be risky.

So play nice, play fair.

Perm banning people who payed to play your game, alongside automation?

This is a recipe for disaster.

I have no qualms about automatically permanently banning players who repeatedly and intentionally ruin the game for other players. If that's all those players are doing in the game, then the terms of service are pretty clear.

Consumer wise, I do have doubts. Automation in general will always be a risky thing because of the potential of false flagging, cracks in the system, etc. If it was manually revived/based, I would never have a problem with this, nor would I be bringing up this point.

And like I said with perm bans, this goes back to the point of your paying customers. Yes, that would help the potential bronze/silver/etc. players, if lets say, someone in diamond was smurfing, but what about the person who put in money to play your game that is in diamond? They are stuck with an unplayable game, which keep in mind, they PAID for. (And if you wanted to go further, I disagree with automated bans in other games as well) it's just generally anti-consumer and unwelcoming.

Edit: what also comes to mind is people using 2nd accounts to warm up (Not for smurfing purposes, keep that in mind.) If they have a bad day warming up, but are trying their best to win, (let's say, 5 in 15 in one game, 7 and 18 the next, etc.) Without any sign of improvement (or being average) that day, would they intentionally be pushing for "smurfing/attempting to manipulate matchmaking" under those circumstances when they tried to play on their main account, assuming they warmed up afterwards?

What about the days where people are just having good games? Surely your system should be able to account for those off times, right? Otherwise, why automate it?

Comedic Hermit wrote:

DerpsterTheNoob wrote:

ZaedynFel wrote:

Not really. You're getting rid of people that are harming the community and the player base. Thus allowing the majority of the people that play the game to have a more enjoyable time and thus have more positive things to say about the game which would mean more positive thoughts out pouring to the community. Pouring out the spoiled milk can only make the fridge smell a bit better.

Same could be said with the opposition of long time players that potentially get affected by this automated system, though, correct? (In regards to an enjoyable time. No, I don't mean with abusing the system, I mean with being able to simply play the game.)

I'll agree with you in the sense that this is a double edged sword, and there is no perfect way to tackle the problem. But I think blocking out players out of the game for life when they paid for it isn't fair to the consumer either, would you agree?

Yes, there are terms. Yes, I support you enforcing them. No, I don't agree with a lifetime ban in regards to playing the game.

Comedic Hermit wrote:

DerpsterTheNoob wrote:

Don't manipulate matchamking and there won't be an issue. If these people were playing the game correctly then they wouldn't get banned.

That's just an assumption that people won't get falsely banned by the system. You can't just say "Oh, you must have did something wrong if you were banned" if you leave it all to automation.

DerpsterTheNoob wrote:

I'll agree with you in the sense that this is a double edged sword, and there is no perfect way to tackle the problem.

You're agreeing with a position I never stated I held. This is a situation where they are making matchmaking more healthy which is beneficial to the player base. You could argue these measures would have been more helpful earlier, but it takes time to respond to problems.

I'm not denying that the system has it's perks, but rather, it has cons also. I remember talking to you months ago on discord on how consoles/second accounts should be dealt with, and I don't remember saying that perm bans should be one of those ways, iirc.Like I said, there is no one good way to tackle the issue. But i'm sure there are better ways than a "complex" (I say that loosely because that term is more subjective if anything) automated system.

DerpsterTheNoob wrote:

But I think blocking out players out of the game for life when they paid for it isn't fair to the consumer either, would you agree?

This is an argument that fails every time it is used.
Not really. If you pay money for a game, then it should work as intended. I think that's a fair statement to make.Yes. People paid for the game. They paid for a game knowing (or being in a position where they should have known) that there are rules in effect and consequences for breaking those rules. You don't get a free pass to be a -Yoink-, because you bought a game.

I mean, that's why you can block and report players, is it not? You have the tools to give to the player the means to not match the accounts again, correct?And even then, I already agreed that the idea of temp bans isn't a bad one as a way to get people to correct their actions.Yesterday as I understand there was a fairly massive football game. If one of those individuals who bought the rather pricy tickets stripped off their clothes and ran onto the field they're stil getting removed despite the fact that they paid for the game. This is the same situation. These people have intentionally made matchmaking worse for everyone and the fact that they paid sixty bucks doesn't make that okay.

I'm not sure how streaking in a football and matchmaking manipulation could even be considered on the same caliber of "offense", as they are two entirely different things, but whatever floats your boat, I guess. But also, see above.

DerpsterTheNoob wrote:

Yes, there are terms. Yes, I support you enforcing them. No, I don't agree with a lifetime ban in regards to playing the game.

I'm going to assume that second sentence is aimed at 343 and not me.

Yes, it was aimed towards 343/the current system. As for lifetime bans? Permabans are presumably a last resort saved for the most egregious violaters or those that have had multiple lesser consequences fall upon them and not changed their behavior. Do you just expect people to recieve 2-week bans over and over as they continue to misbehave?

I'm not expecting a looping punishment of two weeks. I'm just not expecting (and for that matter, not supporting) robotic systems to be able to pull a thanos snap and cause someone's account/console to be entirely unusable in regards to playing halo 5.There is a point where you have to accept that those individuals aren't going to change their behavior and simply remove their ability to harm others.
Which is why I brought up why automation shouldn't be doing this in regards to perm banning. I still don't support the perm ban for this kind of stuff, and quite simply, never will. But at the very least, manual review of perm bans (and possibly extremely long, let's say 3 month bans) should be looked into by a human to ensure that the punishment is valid... that would be a step in the right direction.

Replies in bold.

Comedic Hermit wrote:

That isn't an assumption that is an understanding of the way the system has been described.

An assumption that the system won't false flag and work as intended*Try to disprove this all you want, but at the end of the day, automation can fail, and it has in the past with other games.I don't recall that conversation, but this is a case about manipulating matchmaking to the detriment of the group. If people can't learn and correct their behavior than I don't take issue with them being removed.

I don't mind a temporary removal. Perm removal is where the subject/matter of the issue becomes dodgy and questionable at best, because it's no longer a case of "the consumer get's what they paid for" but rather "The consumer can only play X-modes (let's say campaign, customs, and forge) and is barred from making any sort of progression in the MP side of the game for life"You report players to bring them to the attention of the enforcement team or similar game-by-game features. That's what this is. Blocking is just about removing the ability to receive messages at this point and even if it weren't it would be completely ineffective at dealing with this issue, nor should it be a requirement for players to block a cat and their 97 socks they've been using.

Yet, halo 5 doesn't have a report system? Surely that would help the manual moderation part and wouldn't require much, if any form of automation, correct?Less systems required for automation, allows for the use of evidence for more transparency, can be appealed fairly.. I think these are all very valid reasons for having more manual moderation over automatic.

DerpsterTheNoob wrote:

I'm not sure how streaking in a football and matchmaking manipulation could even be considered on the same caliber of "offense", as they are two entirely different things, but whatever floats your boat, I guess. But also, see above.

They are two obvious examples of bad behavior that can't be excused because somebody spent some cash.

I still think one is far more extreme than the other, but either way. Let's just agree to disagree with this comparison.

DerpsterTheNoob wrote:

I'm not expecting a looping punishment of two weeks. I'm just not expecting (and for that matter, not supporting) robotic systems to be able to pull a thanos snap and cause someone's account/console to be entirely unusable in regards to playing halo 5.Which is why I brought up why automation shouldn't be doing this in regards to perm banning. I still don't support the perm ban for this kind of stuff, and quite simply, never will. But at the very least, manual review of perm bans (and possibly extremely long, let's say 3 month bans) should be looked into by a human to ensure that the punishment is valid... that would be a step in the right direction.

Based on the way the criteria have been described the possible false positives seem pretty low to me.

It's not even that. It's the simple fact that a false positive can happen, which is the problem. Lower numbers =/= "you are 100% safe if you don't do anything wrong" It's true there will always be a margin of error, but you aren't going to have one account play badly enough to get into bronze then go 25-2 against onyx players very often unless one side or the other has been throwing games. Much less have that happen repeatedly either across multiple sock accounts or after the last three times they were banned. The good this system can do, out weighs the possibility of a false positive imo and from what I've seen of the good Doctor I'm sure he and his team will likely be striving to improve the system from here on out further reducing the chances of someone getting banned incorrectly.

You can do just as much with automation as you could by doing things manually. Perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea to use both - Automation for smaller ban times (let's say, less than 1-2 months) and for the bigger ones, (let's say, 3+ months), have it be manually reviewed by a person.Of course, to offset the possibility of a false ban sticking/false flag being set off, I think it's fair that the consumer has the chance to appeal it, should that ever happen, so that if a ban is deemed as such, it can be corrected. Such a system would be much, much better compared to the mostly automated system that's currently set in place.Using the source code button or the quote system with snipping irrelevant text makes these conversations a lot easier to read.

Say no more. Most quotes have been removed

Afro Thunda X wrote:

>People shouldn't be perma-banned for bad behavior or abusing the system in any way, shape, or form, even if they do so on such a fairly regular basis that they're constantly flagged by the system and receive constant bans, because they bought the game.

This argument doesn't even work in real life. Repeat offenders tend to lose their privileges after a while. The ban system does just that.

Nice, ignoring all other points and just sandbagging on something that's already been addressed.

Please actually read my post or don't bother debating with me, as you're just beating a dead horse. Thanks.

I already stated that manual moderation could and should exist if perm bans are needed. I still don't think they should happen, but at the day, an appeals system, human review, and transparency would at the very least, be a start in the right direction.

Comedic Hermit wrote:

Based on the criteria provided I don't think that false positives will be common at all. Yes, an automated system can fail as can a human review and literally every other system that exists. You don't not have police officer because the wrong guy gets arrested occasionally or some crimes going unsolved. What you do is make the system works to minimize those events.

"Won't be common at all"As I said, the fact that they can happen is still a worry some thing. And yes, I don't doubt the fact that humans can mess up too, but humans have a ToS, (hopefully) visual evidence, e.g. looking into theater mode of the game, etc.

DerpsterTheNoob wrote:

I don't mind a temporary removal. Perm removal is where the subject/matter of the issue becomes dodgy and questionable at best, because it's no longer a case of "the consumer get's what they paid for" but rather "The consumer can only play X-modes (let's say campaign, customs, and forge) and is barred from making any sort of progression in the MP side of the game for life"

The consumer knew (or should have known what the consequences for breaking TOS are.) Literally every playlist has 'matchmaking rules are in effect for misconduct' as a warning.

See, that's that's the problem with modern gaming in regards to being vague, and arguably that statement before you jump into a game. This warning is so vague that it's up to the user to believe if something is justified or isn't, assuming they don't use waypoint/the official halo discord/reddit (which, some people don't use any of these)At least some examples being shown/listing would could cause a ban in some sort of information box would be nice, just like MCC's quit warning does (let's them know that they might risk a ban if they quit too many games, and Reach's probation system (let's users know that if they quit during probation, they can't play another match for 10 min)I don't care who paid for the game, if they can't (or more likely won't) behave
than they don't need to be playing. Their 60 dollars doesn't trump the thousands of other people who paid 60 dollars. I'm aware that a lot of people feel entitled to certain things, but that doesn't mesh with reality.
"If you can't be like X person, don't play" isn't really a good mentality when they all paid the same price and aren't told right off the bat what is considered misconduct (goes back to the point above).

DerpsterTheNoob wrote:

Yet, halo 5 doesn't have a report system? Surely that would help the manual moderation part and wouldn't require much, if any form of automation, correct?Less systems required for automation, allows for the use of evidence for more transparency, can be appealed fairly.. I think these are all very valid reasons for having more manual moderation over automatic.

You want 343 to hire a team of people to review millions of reports....
Relax, the game isn't that big right now. I think giving it to a percentage of users as a test run would help prove if it works or doesn't. Right now it hasn't even been attempted.

Comedic Hermit wrote:

....when an automated system will do that work with less expense and less man power so they can work on other things like making the next game, maintaining the integrity of the current, or that hypothetical next patch? Simply put an automated system is going to work much better on the scale we're talking about than hiring a few people to review data. We all have priorities and we aren't in a position to know which one would be feasible on 343's end. I would have to assume that the automated system would be less costly though.But wouldn't doing things manually, or at least allowing some aspects to be controlled by human and not 100% by robot, allow for less false positives. Surely I would think that putting some resources into ensuring that bans are fair and just would be the right thing to do, especially when it comes to perm bans, right?

DerpsterTheNoob wrote:

It's not even that. It's the simple fact that a false positive can happen, which is the problem. Lower numbers =/= "you are 100% safe if you don't do anything wrong"

I explicitly stated there was a margin of error. There is no system that isn't flawed. That doesn't mean that we have to ignore bad behavior.Never said you had to, nor do I agree that any one system is the best. But the point is that margin of error still exists, and I think with the help of manual bans over automatic (especially in the higher end cases) would allow for said person reviewing to be far more transparent than a machine in regards to the message/reason, evidence, etc.

DerpsterTheNoob wrote:

You can do just as much with automation as you could by doing things manually. Perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea to use both - Automation for smaller ban times (let's say, less than 1-2 months) and for the bigger ones, (let's say, 3+ months), have it be manually reviewed by a person.Of course, to offset the possibility of a false ban sticking/false flag being set off, I think it's fair that the consumer has the chance to appeal it, should that ever happen, so that if a ban is deemed as such, it can be corrected. Such a system would be much, much better compared to the mostly automated system that's currently set in place..

An appeal system would be a good idea imo (if one doesn't already exist), other than that the benefits outweigh the slight chance of a false positive imo.Going off of the ban thread, there isn't one right now. I would love for there to be an appeal system though.

DerpsterTheNoob wrote:

Say no more. Most quotes have been removed

I really don't think you understood what I was saying.

Considering the fact that I haven't used waypoint/forums in a while, not really. Markup was never my strongsuit.

DerpsterTheNoob wrote:

Afro Thunda X wrote:

>People shouldn't be perma-banned for bad behavior or abusing the system in any way, shape, or form, even if they do so on such a fairly regular basis that they're constantly flagged by the system and receive constant bans, because they bought the game.

This argument doesn't even work in real life. Repeat offenders tend to lose their privileges after a while. The ban system does just that.

Nice, ignoring all other points and just sandbagging on something that's already been addressed.

Please actually read my post or don't bother debating with me, as you're just beating a dead horse. Thanks.

I already stated that manual moderation could and should exist if perm bans are needed. I still don't think they should happen, but at the day, an appeals system, human review, and transparency would at the very least, be a start in the right direction.

I did. What I got out of it was "I paid for the game. I shouldn't be perma-banned, no matter what I do, regardless of whether I'm willingly or unknowingly breaking rules repeatedly and/or cheating because I paid for the game. I have every right to continue playing the game without threat of being perma-banned, even though I break the rules and/or cheat on a consistent basis which result in numerous lesser bans, because I paid for the game."

I suppose people like those who choose to do such things will be glad to know you're sticking up for their right to continue doing such things without receiving the ultimate punishment.

I believe it was mentioned that perma-bans are the be-all-end-all last resort for punishments, so the system would have to be quite charitable (downright saintly) before it decides one is needed. For someone to actually earn it would likely mean they have a fairly active history of doing whatever it is they've been banned for. Sure, an appeals system and review will be nice when such things go down, but when they weigh that appeal next to the history of actions of the player, I see very, very few bans being overturned. But I suppose that's what you're aiming for. The system is cold and calculating and doesn't change its mind when it decides on something. At least with some warm, fleshy bodies overseeing things, there's but a sliver of hope for someone who's been perma-banned.

Afro Thunda X wrote:

DerpsterTheNoob wrote:

Afro Thunda X wrote:

>People shouldn't be perma-banned for bad behavior or abusing the system in any way, shape, or form, even if they do so on such a fairly regular basis that they're constantly flagged by the system and receive constant bans, because they bought the game.

This argument doesn't even work in real life. Repeat offenders tend to lose their privileges after a while. The ban system does just that.

Nice, ignoring all other points and just sandbagging on something that's already been addressed.

Please actually read my post or don't bother debating with me, as you're just beating a dead horse. Thanks.

I already stated that manual moderation could and should exist if perm bans are needed. I still don't think they should happen, but at the day, an appeals system, human review, and transparency would at the very least, be a start in the right direction.

I did. What I got out of it was "I paid for the game. I shouldn't be perma-banned, no matter what I do, regardless of whether I'm willingly or unknowingly breaking rules repeatedly and/or cheating because I paid for the game. I have every right to continue playing the game without threat of being perma-banned, even though I break the rules and/or cheat on a consistent basis which result in numerous lesser bans, because I paid for the game."

It's been like that for 4 years now, so yes. Perm bans against paying consumers for something like this done by automation is a stupid concept and shouldn't be a thing. Had it been done manually, again, I wouldn't be here saying it's a bad idea. The current system (I feel) was more so implemented as a short stop rather that solution that's good on both ends of the spectrum. I suppose people like those who choose to do such things will be glad to know you're sticking up for their right to continue doing such things without receiving the ultimate punishment.

I support the consumer's right to fairness, rather than the current system of not allowing appeals and automatic bans taking place. Stop trying to pull a strawman of "I support cheating", because that's simply an exaggeration made under false pretenses. I believe it was mentioned that perma-bans are the be-all-end-all last resort for punishments, so the system would have to be quite charitable (downright saintly) before it decides one is needed.

"starting at 14 days, and quickly escalating into permanence."Yeah, I don't think "quick" and "downright sanity" go together in this case.For someone to actually earn it would likely mean they have a fairly active history of doing whatever it is they've been banned for. Sure, an appeals system and review will be nice when such things go down, but when they weigh that appeal next to the history of actions of the player, I see very, very few bans being overturned.

As I said, having an appeal system is better than having nothing and just being told to wait it out because it's "automatic" and that "nothing can be done about it"But I suppose that's what you're aiming for. The system is cold and calculating and doesn't change its mind when it decides on something. At least with some warm, fleshy bodies overseeing things, there's but a sliver of hope for someone who's been perma-banned.
My point is that automation shouldn't be doing long bans, or for that matter, perm bans. I don't agree with the idea of perm bans in general, but at the end of the day, like I said, if there was a system that allowed for manual moderation instead of automation in regards to extremely lengthy/perm bans, then that would be a step in the right direction.

Replies in bold

I'm curious: does TS2 predict deaths per minute as well? I am wondering if somebody could purposely throw placement matches then party up with high ranks to deal damage (with a low kpm) and have the game knowledge to avoid feeding the enemy team. There are quite a lot of hoops to jump through for it to work, but would it get flagged for a ban?